If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are unprofessional if you put too much personality into your work. Have a look at the occasionally-mentioned lwn.net, usually you can spot different writers by their style, but they don't have scheiße in their articles (and if you're offended by me mentioning the word scheiße that often, why not at Michael as well?). To quote from Mediawriting: print, broadcast, and public relations: "[...] the media writer instead writes without a conspicuous personality" (note that it doesn't say "no personality").

Professional only means you earn money from your doing and being and Michael earn money from his work this makes him a Professional.

You can not be unprofessional just because you do have a strong personality.

And yes i think you are Guilty in insult Michael you violated his personal rights.

That may be so but I would be glad to see Bulldozer perform well under Linux and gcc, I don't really care that much about Windows. You say it needs improvements in the kernel, well who exactly stopped AMD from pushing this 1 year ago when they had their first Bulldozer samples ready, could test and all of that. That's how you do things, not wait till it's out, then say, oh but it will work better with these.
The CPU is just not that good and I doubt performance will improve more than 5% even with all the patches and stuff which should have been in the kernel for quite some time now if they were professional about it. I love AMD but they screwed up big time with Bulldozer.

and you don't get the point that the instruction set for hand optimization code isn't a compiler problem the GCC can't magic do the job for you. you have to rewrite the software to benefit from AVX and FMA4 and SSE4.2

Comment

and you don't get the point that the instruction set for hand optimization code isn't a compiler problem the GCC can't magic do the job for you. you have to rewrite the software to benefit from AVX and FMA4 and SSE4.2

Wow, I'm impressed Q. That's a point that I have been trying to beat into some peoples heads for a long time.

Comment

Wow, I'm impressed Q. That's a point that I have been trying to beat into some peoples heads for a long time.

Yes sure. but i think its like fighting again brain-death zombies they never understand the True nature.

Compilers only work for Integer and Floating point calculations but not for SIMD SSE,SSE2,SSE3,SSE4.2,AVX,FMA3,FMA4,XOP calculations.

Because these SIMD operations are not logical and not causality but a Compiler only abstract the Logical and Causality from a Logical program language construct to an 01 Computer code for the Integer or Floating point unit.

In a world of 100% compiler makes the work there is no SIMD(SSE-unit)

Comment

What you say has some basis, the compilers can be optimized to favor Intel, at least on Windows. On Linux though gcc is open source, no one stops AMD from contributing. Also being beaten by your old CPU in some benchmarks while having 110% more transistors is unforgivable. This is not Intel or the compilers, you're losing to your own older generation.

I disagree. Intel regularly uses it's monopoly to force it's technology on everybody, and the constant influx of SSE instructions are what keep the x86 monopoly going. AMD could come up with their own instructions, but how well do you think they would do with incompatible instructions and significantly less marketshare? Furthermore, there's only so many instructions that are actually useful, Intel could sue them for IP infringement if anything was deemed to similar.

If AMD were to start doing their own thing with instructions, then AMD's x86 would quickly turn into a fringe server architecture that only runs operating systems specially compiled for it with GCC, like any other number of CPUs from IBM, Sun, etc... So following Intel's lead is still their best option, and things won't change until regulators grow a pair and decide to break up the Intel monopoly racket.

Comment

Yes sure. but i think its like fighting again brain-death zombies they never understand the True nature.

Compilers only work for Integer and Floating point calculations but not for SIMD SSE,SSE2,SSE3,SSE4.2,AVX,FMA3,FMA4,XOP calculations.

Because these SIMD operations are not logical and not causality but a Compiler only abstract the Logical and Causality from a Logical program language construct to an 01 Computer code for the Integer or Floating point unit.

In a world of 100% compiler makes the work there is no SIMD(SSE-unit)

Well even with Integer and Floating point calculations you can still get even better performance with fine tuned hand written optimizations. But I will still give you a gold star. ;D